Mike, This is what you wrote...my questions or suggestions will be hi-lighted in red.
Interesting thread, there are so many examples it's best to start with a generality, and keep in mind we're talking about 2 different things: the amount needed to re-open the bet to a player who's already acted, and the amount that is the minimum raise.
Post-flop Player A opens for 400. The minimum total raise to re-open for him is 800. It doesn't matter how you get there, as long as the bet when it returns to him is at least 800, he can raise. Please explain how any number of short all-ins gets there without a single player putting in at least 800?
NOW, what is the min-raise to him? It's the largest single bet or raise of the round*. If there's a series of "short all-in wagers" that total at least 800 and no single all-in wager exceeds 400 over the previous player Since when is a short all-in over the previous player considered relevant? to act (which it wouldn't, because otherwise, it wouldn't be a short all-in), then the min-raise is still 400 to Player A. Are you saying: Adam opens post flop 400, Bonnie goes all-in for 600, Carl goes all-in for 200, Diane calls 600. Eddy goes all-in for 700, and Freddie can fold, call 700 or raise to at least 1100 correct? Only a raise from Freddie could reopen the betting to Adam correct? You notice that I put lesser amounts of al-ins in front of higher amounts...just trying to make a point.
As for a "legal raise" or "full raise", this is important semantics. In conventional poker rules FOR NO LIMIT POKER, a short all-in wager by definition is not a "raise", but is an "all-in wager". A raise by definition must be at least full minimum. Also in No-Limit each bet, raise, or all-in wager is considered a complete action not subject to completion of addition by subsequent players. a complete action not subject to completion of addition by subsequent players. Not sure I understand this part.
This applies to a long series of short all-ins provided in one post... doesn't matter how long the list is, if no single action exceeds the preceding action by more than a full minimum raise then the min raise amount is not changed. The irony I've always seen is this: Post flop the BB opens for 400... it's folded or called around to the SB who makes it 1250. The min raise to the BB is then 850 more. However, if there's a series of 400 calls AND/OR short all-ins that total 1250, the min raise to the BB is still 400, because no single action was greater than 400 over the preceding action. Yes, but if you hit 1250 a single player had to have 1250 and put it in. I see what the problem is...you're counting a bunch of short all-ins that should never be counted unless they double the original bettor!!!! Holy crap, I've been right all along!Hope this helps and thanks for the interesting discussion, definitely deserves some clarification at Summit 2019. Thanks, Mike I understand why I've been confused for the past 7 years.